Policy changes through decision models: planning and implementing Florida growth management, 1970–2010

Abstract

This study analyzes Florida's five growth management policies from 1970 to 2010. The two most recent policies cover sustainable urban development initiatives. In each of the five policies, one decision model represents the planning policy phase including state legislation and another model represents the subsequent policy implementation (administration) phase including state–regional–local regulation and enforcement. The thread of different models throughout the 10 phases reveals critical changes in legislation and implementation decision styles. It shows policy change and development from problem emergence through decades of legislation and implementation experiences. Florida's narrative demonstrates successful planning and problematic discretionary implementation including numerous incremental compliance versions. The failure of planning policies to link effectively to implementation highlights the distinction between legislative requirements and administrative activities. Implementation also played a key role in influencing subsequent planning and implementation phases.

Keywords:

• policy change
• decision model
• planning
• implementation
• Florida
• growth management
• sustainable urban development

1. Introduction

In winter 1970–1971, Lake Okeechobee dropped 2 feet and South Florida rainfall dropped 22 inches below normal level. The Tampa Bay area suffered huge water shortages and high muck fires spread over Everglades Park. Heightening environmentalists' concerns further, Disney World was to open in Orlando in the fall. Florida's drought coincided with the election campaign and inauguration of Democratic Governor Reubin Askew. In August 1971, Askew assembled a broad coalition of stakeholders to solve the crisis and to initiate a drastic policy change – the first statewide growth management legislation (DeGrove 1984, p. 106–109).

This was the beginning of professional planning in Florida. The governor-led coalition questioned the benefits of population growth and unplanned expansion. The first growth management policy introduced a rational planning model. The policy turned to an incremental implementation model by the late 1970s. Three policies followed in the next three decades introducing rational implementation, process planning, and strategic planning models.

These five decision models reflect the important changes in Florida policies from 1970 to 2010. For each of Florida's five growth management policies in this study, one model organizes and interprets the planning policy phase. This phase covers state legislation including requirements to prepare local, regional, and state plans. For each policy, one model organizes and interprets the subsequent policy implementation phase. This phase focuses on intergovernmental plan review and compliance. Linked to preceding state legislation, implementation covers regulation and enforcement including state-level regulations, their enforcement over regional/local plans, and enforcement of local plans.

The purpose of this study is to delineate a thread of policy changes through the decision-making models of Florida's five policies. The thread begins with the model representing the planning policy phase and continues with the model representing the policy implementation phase of the first policy. The thread follows with the models representing the planning policy and policy implementation phases of the second policy. It continues with the models of the third, fourth, and fifth policies, altogether covering 10 phases. These planning–implementation–planning–implementation phases delineate the thread of policy changes, which are reflected through the different decision models. The 1970–2010 thread covers an average of 10 years per policy (some years overlap between one policy and the next).

The first of the three contributions of this study is to the planning/policy literature. A single policy phase covers years of cumulative planning/implementation activities, which lend evidence for a distinct decision model (Mazmanian and Kraft 1999; Sabatier 1999). The thread of different models reveals critical changes in legislative and administrative decision styles. It shows policy development from problem emergence through decades of legislation and implementation experiences (Nakamura and Smallwood 1980; Ingram 1990; deLeon 1999). The distinction between planning policy and policy implementation also highlights the discrepancies between legislative requirements and administrative activities (Pressman and Wildavsky 1973; Nakamura 1987) and demonstrates the actual impact of state statutes over local compliance practices (Burby and Paterson 1993; Berke and French 1994; Deyle and Smith 1998; Gormley 1998). The implementation phase is particularly important because its lessons influence subsequent planning and implementation phases.

The study's second contribution is to the growth management literature. The policies of Florida in 1980s and 1990s led the national growth management movement. They often were described in rational planning, rational implementation, and process planning terms. This study covers four decades, thus adding strategic planning and incremental implementation models. The five models altogether provide better understanding of policy change in Florida growth management. They reinforce recent studies showing Florida's less rational decision styles, thus contributing to the area of comparative state growth management (DeGrove 1984, 1992, 2005; Gale 1992; Innes 1992; Bollens 1993; May et al. 1996; Weitz 1999; Ben-Zadok and Gale 2001; Chapin et al. 2007; Howell-Moroney 2007; Yin and Sun 2007).

The study's third contribution is to the sustainable development literature. Florida's planning for sustainability began in the early 1990s and advanced for two decades under the study's fourth and fifth policies. These policies and their sustainable urban development initiatives have been the subject of political debate reaching a deadlock (DeGrove 2005, p. 69–86; RuBino and Starnes 2008, p. 385–433). Florida was hit by the national recession in the mid-2000s and its economy, real estate, tourism, and employment has continued to decline (House Policy and Budget Council 2008). The political turmoil culminated in the 2011 drastic policy change noted in the last section. This narrative highlights the problems of planning and implementation of sustainable urban development initiatives. It may offer implications to similar initiatives in other states.

The study describes policy change in terms of what has changed in legislative and administrative decision styles. With respect to why the change took place, two explanations from the literature are apparent throughout the study. First, policy change is caused by increased knowledge of implementation problems, that is, change in goals/processes is the result of new ideas and behaviors that originated in new information (cognitive). Second, policy change is caused by shifts in social, economic, and political conditions, that is, change in goals/processes is the result of new experiences due to altering circumstances (non-cognitive) (Heclo 1974; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999).

The next section introduces Florida's five policies. The section thereafter discusses the decision models and the policy phases they represent. Each of the subsequent five sections analyzes one policy, including its planning and implementation models. The two final sections offer a summary of policy change across all phases followed by conclusions and implications.

2. Florida growth management policies, 1970–2010

The unit of analysis to study policy changes is Florida's legislative and government institutions that plan and implement growth management policies on the state, regional, and local levels. These institutions and related interest and citizen groups seek to influence policy in the state growth management domain (Kingdon 1984; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999; True et al. 1999). The domain includes five leading policies enacted under Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes between 1970 and 2010. Chapter 163 was known as the 1975 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (LGCPA) and later became the 1985 Growth Management Act (GMA) (DeGrove 1992, 2005). The three-left columns of Table 1 introduce Florida growth management policies and their documentary sources. The first column of Table 1 lists the following five policies: (1) comprehensive planning 1970s, (2) consistency 1980s, (3) concurrency 1980s–1990s, (4) compact development 1990s, and (5) school/transportation concurrency 2000s.

Table 1. Florida growth management policies, 1970–2010: legislation, regulation, purpose, planning and implementation decision models

Policy title/period/focus^a	Policy's state legislative act/amendment	Policy's state legislation/regulation reference	Policy purpose	Planning policy decision model	Policy implementation decision model
Comprehensive planning 1970s/1970–1982/local planning	The 1975 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (LGCPA).	Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3211.1975. No stateregulation.	Organization of planning through mandatory local comprehensive plan and intergovernmental plan review; aimed to balance population growth with environmental and natural resource protection.	Rational: low level. Prepare and adopt a local plan, including separated and coordinated land uses as well as plan elements. No state and regional plans.	Incremental: high level. Review and comment on local plan at the state and regional levels; no review and approval against plans. No state enforcement over local plans. Negotiation among competing stakeholders and local discretion result in numerous variable compromises and local decisions. No state funds for local/regional planning.
Consistency1980s/1982–1993/inter- governmental planning and implementation	The 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation, known as the 1985 Growth Management Act (GMA). The 1986 GMA's “Glitch Bill” amendment.	Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3243. 1987. Rule 9J-5.001-016. 1989.	Organization of planning through consistency in local–regional–state plan review and approval process; aimed to control growth, especially in the more developed coastal zones.	Rational: high level. Prepare and adopt a local/regional/state comprehensive plan. Local plan includes coordinated land uses and plan elements. Regional plan includes regional characteristics and policy standards. State plan includes state goals and policies.	Rational: high level. Successful local–regional–state plan review and approval process. The DCA employs state Rule 9J-5 for centralized, top-down consistency in decisions. Local compliance attained. Small state funds for local planning.
Concurrency 1980s–1990s/1985–1993/six public facilities	The 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation, known as the 1985 Growth Management Act (GMA). The 1986 GMA's “Glitch Bill” amendment.	Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161- 3243. 1987. Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3245. 1999. Rule 9J-5.001-016. 1989.	Controlled growth and economic development via mandated construction and funding of public facilities; six facilities to support development must be available ‘concurrent’ with the impact of such development.	Process planning: high level. Advanced coordination of capital improvement program and local comprehensive plan. The program, a central plan element, includes adequate facilities. Planning is a continuous process, coordinated with implementation. Funding sources are not identified.	Incremental: low level. DCA's discretionary approach invites local stakeholders' negotiation. This results in case-by-case bargaining compromises and numerous local compliance variances. Decentralized state policy. Its direction becomes unclear. Fiscal hardships of localities responsible for funding facilities, greatly contribute to this decision style.
Compact development1990s/1992–2004/anti-sprawl and urban areas	Four 1985 GMA's amendments: 1993 transportation concurrency (Ch. 163.3180); 1996 sustainable communities (Ch. 163. 3244-3245); 1999 urban infill and redevelopment (Ch. 163. 2511-2526), and; 2002 Local Government Comprehensive Planning (Ch. 163. 3246).	Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3245. 1999. Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247. 2009. Rule9J-5.001-025. 1999. Rule9J-5.001-026. 2009.	Restrain sprawl toward environmental and natural resources and, instead, direct growth to sustainable/compact urban development areas with mixed land uses and high densities; the designated areas receive incentives to promote sustainable/compact development.	Strategic planning: high level. Long-range rational strategies to restrain sprawl and promote sustainable/compact urban development areas. To advance strategies, the designated urban areas receive state incentives, short-range incremental tactics, to support activities to enhance urban infill, redevelopment, and revitalization.	Incremental: high level. Increased discretion in state–local regulations aimed to accommodate negotiating stakeholders. Power decentralized from state to local. The result is case-by-case convenient local compromises. Limited local enforcement. State's policy direction is lost. Decreased regional role for the DCA and RPCs. Continuous fiscal hardships of localities contribute to this decision style.
School/ transportation concurrency2000s/2002–2010Public school/transportationfacilities	Four 1985 GMA's amendments: 2005 school concurrency (Ch.163. 2511-3247. [(31777) (1-7)][(3180) (13-14)]), and; 2005/2007/2009 transportation concurrency (Ch.163.2511-3247. [(3164) (32)][(3180) (4-12)]).	Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511- 3247. 2009. Rule9J-5.001-026. 2009	Sustainable urban development including mixed land uses and public transits; public school and transportation facilities to support development must be available ‘concurrent’ with the impact of such development.	Strategic Planning: low level. Long-range rational strategies to coordinate residential development and school/transportation concurrency. The strategies also include weak principles for transportation areas. To advance strategies, areas are managed by state guidelines, including proportionate share mitigation where short-range incremental tactics are decided.	Incremental: high level. Increased discretion in proportionate share mitigation. Case-by-case stakeholders' negotiation and decentralized local enforcement. Continuous fiscal hardships to finance local facilities and the DCA's budget and staff cuts, all appear to encourage this decision style.
Notes: ^aPolicy title includes the decade in which the vast majority of planning and implementation activities occurred. Policy period marks the exact period covering the policy (in this article). Policy focus notes the critical area the policy targeted.

The first and last policy titles were created for this study. The other three titles are common in the literature. The five policy titles are positioned along 40 years continuum. Each title includes the decade in which the vast majority of planning policy and policy implementation activities occurred (e.g., consistency 1980s). Still in the first column, the title is followed by the exact period, covered in the article, for this policy (consistency 1980s, 1982–1993). Next is the focus of the policy, its targeted area (intergovernmental planning and implementation).

The second column of Table 1 indicates the year and heading of the act/amendment(s) under which the policy was incorporated. The third column of Table 1 indicates the article's bibliographical reference to the act/amendment(s), followed by a reference to the state-level regulatory document derived from the act/amendment(s). Note that Chapter 163 experienced many heading, section number, and content changes through the years. However, the second column shows the LGCPA acronym was used only in the 1970s. Thereafter, the acronyms GMA and Rule 9J-5 were used until 2010 (see Table 1).

The three right columns of Table 1 provide substantive information about the five policies. The fourth column describes the policy purpose. The fifth and sixth columns indicate the decision model representing each policy's planning legislation and implementation phases. The model's application level to the specific phase, low/high level, is followed by an explanation for this assessment.

3. Decision models and Florida policies

This section describes each decision model and the planning policy and policy implementation phases it represents in Florida growth management. Five models are introduced in order of theory progression: (1) rational planning, (2) rational implementation, (3) process planning, (4) incremental implementation, and (5) strategic planning.

Rational planning. The rational model dominated professional planning and the comprehensive (master) plan until the 1950s. The comprehensive plan focuses on physical planning of separated and coordinated land uses and also includes social and economic elements. The plan's preparation is a linear step-by-step procedure beginning with rational-instrumental goals and means. The rational decision model represents the planning policy phase of two policies: comprehensive planning 1970s and consistency 1980s (see Table 1). This phase began with the preparation and adoption of local comprehensive plans. In the 1980s, local plans had to be consistent with regional and state plans (Chapin 1965; Alexander 1984, 1986; Chapin et al. 2007).

Rational implementation. This model represents the implementation phase of consistency 1980s (see Table 1). Planning policy was implemented through intergovernmental consistency. Florida local comprehensive plans adhered to regional plans; local and regional plans were coordinated with the state plan. Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the state land planning agency, centralized this linear top-down review and ensured uniform local compliance (Gale 1992; Starnes 1993).

Process planning. This model represents planning policy in concurrency 1980s–1990s (see Table 1). The concurrency requirement was a central part of the local comprehensive plan. It mandates that six public facilities to support development must be available ‘concurrent’ with the impact of such development. Concurrency planning included mechanisms for continuous decision process, aiming to respond to changes during implementation (Chadwick 1971; Ben-Zadok and Gale 2001, p. 66–68 and 301–345).

Process planning modified linear rational planning and dominated the profession since the 1960s. This decision model represents a major rational movement toward goal achievement, combined with minor iterations and feedback loops in every step. This continuous revision and update process responds to social, economic, and political changes during implementation (Rein and Rabinovitz 1978; Hudson 1979; Alexander 1984).

Incremental implementation. Critiques of rationalism in the 1950s introduced the incremental model as a practical response to cognitive and intelligence limits in decision-making. In this ‘bounded rationality’ process, actors reinforce their confidence by making safe and ‘satisficing’ decisions. The actors account simultaneously for policy goals and means, thus making incremental modifications and revisions. This decision style fits a decentralized policy environment where multiple actors compete, negotiate, and bargain. The compromising results are many different incremental changes that lack clear policy direction but preserve political stability (Simon 1957; Lindblom 1959, 1979).

The incremental model represents policy implementation in comprehensive planning 1970s, concurrency 1980s–1990s, compact development 1990s, and school/transportation concurrency 2000s (see Table 1). These four policies implemented intergovernmental plan review in a decentralized environment experiencing power shifts from state to local government. Florida communities enjoyed much discretion in negotiating their growth interests with the state. Case-by-case bargaining among competing state, local, development, and environmental stakeholders led to numerous incremental versions in local implementation. Policy goals were adjusted to local circumstances and became less useful for guiding implementation. The state's policy direction became unclear and gradually lost its course (Ben-Zadok 2005; Chapin et al. 2007).

Strategic planning. Similarly to the ‘mixed-scanning’ model of the 1960s, strategic planning integrates rational and incremental decisions. It begins with the formulation of strategic rational decisions and continues with tactical incremental decisions, subjected to the strategic ones. Rational decisions reduce incremental aspects by exploring long-range alternatives. Incremental decisions reduce rational aspects by offering short-range practical alternatives (Etzioni 1967; Kaufman and Jacobs 1987).

Strategic planning represents the planning policy phase of compact development 1990s and school/transportation concurrency 2000s (see Table 1). Compact development aimed to restrain urban and suburban sprawl toward environmental and natural resources and, instead, to direct growth to compact urban areas. The policy offered long-range intervention strategies to encourage sustainable urban development. The strategies were implemented through incremental tactics – incentives targeted for a designated urban area. The concurrency policy promoted long-range intervention strategies to encourage sustainable urban development by coordinating development and school/transportation concurrency. The strategies were implemented through incremental tactics – regulatory guidelines targeted for a designated concurrency area (DeGrove 2005; Ben-Zadok 2006, p. 43–92).

4. Comprehensive planning 1970s

Florida grew from 5.0 million people in 1960 to 6.8 million in 1970. The 37% population growth led to huge backlogs in state and local infrastructures and services (Colburn and deHaven-Smith 2002, p. 37 and 51–61). State government neither set restrictions on new development nor intervened in local land regulation. The pro-growth agenda promoted the interests of growth machines that dominated Florida counties and cities. A growth machine is a for-profit coalition of private actors who influence local land development decisions and lack professional planning orientation (Turner 1990a). Uncontrolled growth and sprawl of communities led to degradation of ecological and natural systems. But public awareness was increasing due to the national environmental movement that criticized localities for sprawl and the failure to resist development pressures. The movement called on states to place the issue on their agendas and to promote uniform local compliance in growth control and environmental protection (Bosselman and Callies 1971; DeGrove 1984; Burby and Paterson 1993, p. 102–105).

After Governor Askew entered office during the 1970–1971 crisis, he launched the August 1971 conference on land and water management. This event also organized a coalition of stakeholders from state–local governments, environmental groups, and the development industry. In November 1971, the Governor charged a task force to propose statewide legislation focusing on regional-level environmental and natural resource protection. This led to four bills enacted by the Florida legislature in 1972: Environmental Land and Water Management (Chapter 380), Water Resources, State Comprehensive Planning (Chapter 23), and Land Conservation (DeGrove 1984, p. 99–121).

4.1. Rational planning

Next on Askew's agenda was state-centralized planning to manage the fast population growth. In 1972, the governor and legislature appointed the first Environmental Land Management Study Committee to lead this task (DeGrove 1984, p. 120–124). The legislation crafted in the Committee's 1974 report led to the bill enacted as the 1975 LGCPA (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3211 1975).

The LGCPA focused primarily on comprehensive planning 1970s. Florida's first policy introduced a rational planning policy phase that drastically changed land-use practice. The rational model lies in the new requirement to prepare and adopt a local comprehensive plan in every community. The plan aims to accommodate and balance the fast population growth with environmental and natural resource protection. It focuses on physical planning of separated and coordinated land uses. The plan includes elements of housing, traffic, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and water, recreation and open space, and natural resources (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3211 1975) (see Table 1).

The low-level rational model of planning policy in comprehensive planning 1970s is due to the absence of state and regional plan requirements in the LGCPA (see Table 1). Chapter 23 created a process to adopt a state plan, but even that process failed. Regional policy guidelines and criteria for plan review remained incomplete. Regional policy relied on two interim requirements of Chapter 380 allowing the state to overrule local governments: Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for large-scale projects and Areas of Critical State Concern (Pelham 2007).

4.2. Incremental implementation

The 1970s policy demonstrates high-level incremental policy implementation. The state review aimed for compliance with local comprehensive planning requirements. In the absence of state and regional plans, local plans were subjected to general review and comment at these levels; rather than review and approval/rejection against plans. The policy lacked mechanisms to ensure adoption and enforcement of local plans. The state did not fund local planning and it assigned regional planning to poorly funded Regional Planning Councils (RPCs) (Pelham 2007) (see Table 1).

Intergovernmental implementation enjoyed much discretion. Incremental style was evident in numerous case-by-case local decisions, the results of variable compromises among state, local, development, and environmental stakeholders. The competitive negotiation turned bottom-up the state–local decision-making. Local plans accommodated actors who perceived the state review as intrusive. Zoning led the plan, rather than the plan dictating zoning and subdivision rules. By mid-1982, 419 out of 461 cities and counties adopted comprehensive plans that were formally reviewed and commented at the state and regional levels. The process was completed in December 1982, when Florida population reached 10.4 million (DeGrove 1984, p. 161–163; Turner 1990a; DeGrove 1992, p. 8–11).

5. Consistency 1980s

Shortly after his 1982 re-election, Democratic Governor Bob Graham appointed the second Environmental Land Management Study Committee. From 1984 to 1986, the legislature passed almost every recommendation of the Committee's report. Two new acts marked the continuous concern with environmental and natural resource protection: The 1984 State and Regional Planning (Chapter 186) and the 1985 State Comprehensive Plan (SCP) (Chapter 187) (DeGrove 1992, p. 10–12).

5.1. Rational planning

The 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation, known as the GMA and amended by the 1986 ‘Glitch Bill,’ redefined Florida growth management (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3243 1987). The act focused on intergovernmental consistency in planning and implementation in an effort to control growth, especially in coastal zones (Pelham 2007).

Consistency 1980s introduced a high-level rational planning policy phase. It required communities to prepare and adopt a local comprehensive plan, including coordinated land uses and social and economic planning. The plan consists of capital improvement, transportation, housing, recreation, open space, and environmental elements. The consistency requirement continues with the regional and state plans, two comprehensive solutions to the absence of such mechanisms in the 1970s. The regional policy plan is prepared and adopted by each state's RPC. It covers regional characteristics such as infrastructure and land use as well as policy standards for local services and affordable housing. The SCP includes goals and policies for natural resource, environmental, land use, social, and economic planning (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3243 1987 (3184); Starnes 1993) (see Table 1).

5.2. Rational implementation

Florida's second policy also presents high-level rational policy implementation. The consistency requirement delineates compliance among local, regional, and state plans. It includes consistency between the local comprehensive plan and land development codes like zoning. It also includes consistency between local plans of nearby jurisdictions and between local and regional plans. This requirement covers DCA's review and approval of local and regional plans against the state plan (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3243 1987; Gale 1992; Starnes 1993) (see Table 1).

Rule 9J-5 of Florida Administrative Code was derived from the GMA, approved by the 1986 legislature, and implemented by the DCA. It provides minimum statewide criteria for top-down review of regional and local plans. The DCA enforces consistency between the state criteria and regional and local plans. The local government formulates regulations for its plan and land development codes and then monitors enforcement (Rule 9J-5.001-016 1989).

The DCA's local plan review used strict state standards and deadlines, followed by unequivocal compliance procedures and financial sanctions. With little state funding to prepare plans, sanctions posed substantial threats to localities. Because the DCA often imposed sanctions on physical aspects, planners focused on local infrastructure and traffic rather than on affordable housing and other social aspects (Turner 1990a; Innes 1992; Porter and Watson 1993; Turner 1993; Liou and Dicker 1994).

The state review and approval from 1988 to 1993 proved effective in achieving compliance. Growth management studies described the process as successful top-down implementation (Turner 1990a, 1990b; Gale 1992; Bollens 1993). After all regional plans were approved in 1987, all local plans met the July 1991 DCA's submission deadline (Nelson and Duncan 1995, p. 24). Implementation was completed in December 1993 when the DCA found almost all 457 local plans in compliance (May et al. 1996, p. 132).

Florida experienced a drastic policy change while growing by 32.7% in the 1980s and reaching 12.9 million residents in 1990. The 1970s incremental implementation was replaced by a state-centralized bureaucracy implementing a rational-legal model. Consistency 1980s inaugurated Florida as a growth management leader.

6. Concurrency 1980s–1990s

The capital improvement program is a central element of the local comprehensive plan. It includes public facilities to support development and their minimum level-of-service (LOS) standards to accommodate projected growth. The program prohibits the issuance of development permit that could reduce the LOS below minimum standards (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3243 1987 (3177)). Since 1989, six public facilities to support residential and commercial developments must be available ‘concurrent’ with the impact of such developments: Transportation (roads), sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and parks and recreation (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3245 1999. (3180)(1)(a)). From 1989 to 1993, the DCA enforced statewide compliance with Rule 9J-5 by reviewing and approving every local plan and its capital improvement program. Local enforcement then began via the Concurrency Management System (CMS), a 9J-5's tool to monitor the routine maintenance of facilities and LOS standards (Pelham 1992).

6.1. Process planning

The incorporation and coordination of the capital improvement program and the local plan demonstrate high-level process planning, the model representing the planning policy phase of concurrency 1980s–1990s. Adequate public facilities must be provided for approval of a new development in the local plan. Otherwise, the development permit is denied (see Table 1). The requirement to deliver facilities is at the land-use planning/regulation stage rather than the later development/enforcement stage. The concurrency policy enables an advanced program–plan coordination including iterations, revisions, and updates in facility delivery and the time and location of future development. In this continuous decision process, concern with implementation and changing conditions begins during goal formulation (Pelham 1992; Ben-Zadok and Gale 2001).

Concurrency is the plan's critical element due to its role in local growth and economic development. Concurrency directs future development by enforcing facilities and denying permits when facilities are inadequate. It informs developers regarding the adequacy of facilities and the costs of capitalizing facilities into land values. Developers absorb the costs by paying concurrency fees as prerequisite for permits, assuming such investments will generate profits. Availability of facilities and potential market response thus determine land values and, in turn, affect the volume and pace of development (Nicholas 1993, p. 210–211).

6.2. Incremental implementation

Although the capital improvement program includes public facilities' costs and financing plan, the funding sources and their shares were not identified in the legislation (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3161-3243 1987. (3177)(3)). The legislation also omitted schools, a large budget item, from the required facilities list. In the absence of state commitment and explicit responsibilities, concurrency funding was relegated to local governments. Because Florida localities were short of budgets for backlog improvements and new facilities construction, they generated revenues via special districts, local option taxes, and impact fees. Localities negotiated with developers to pay the cost of facilities in impact fees. Impact fees were adopted in 125 out of 459 Florida communities by 1991 (DeGrove 1992, p. 23–25; Pelham 1992; MacManus 1998; Nicholas and Chapin 2007).

These local fiscal hardships contributed greatly to low-level incremental implementation in concurrency 1980s–1990s (see Table 1). Early evidence of incrementalism appeared in flexible timing points for concurrency and their adjustment to local circumstances. The question was whether facilities should be available when a development permit is issued, a development is opened, or at some later date. The DCA's two-step discretionary approach invited state–local negotiation over timing points and funding priorities. The first step in Rule 9J-5 classified the categories for concurrency facilities. The second step, multiple timing points for availability of facilities, allowed a flexible implementation schedule for sewer, waste, drainage, and water, and especially flexible schedule for roads (Pelham 1992; Rule 9J-5.001-016, 1989. (0055)(1)).

The DCA's flexible rules for capacity deficits in existing facilities also invited negotiation. Paying for deficits was important when infrastructures were operating at or above capacity. Developers then rushed projects through local government approval. This is because they feared that once concurrency rules became effective, the impact fees they paid would finance earlier projects. The DCA then ruled each project to pay in proportion to its consumption of infrastructure capacity (DeGrove 1992, p. 25; DeGrove and Gale 1994).

This incremental implementation style relieved localities and developers. The DCA learned not to replicate the top-down compliance of consistency 1980s. It acknowledged local circumstances and allowed localities to adjust rules to their needs. Local governments became more entrepreneurial, negotiating with developers who gained increasing influence. The state–local discretionary approach invited negotiation among competing government, development, and environmental stakeholders. This resulted in case-by-case bargaining compromises and numerous local decisions of compliance variances. The state policy was decentralized and its direction became unclear (Ben-Zadok 2005; Jeong 2006; Jeong and Feiock 2006; Chapin 2007).

A 1992 survey shows different responses to the question regarding how long after payment of impact fees can a developer reserve public facility capacity. Of 146 Florida localities, 45% had no procedure to determine whether capacity reservation was guaranteed for a permit applicant; 30% did not reserve capacity until the applicant's project reached the final stage of issuing a building permit. When capacity was secured for approved projects, 59% of localities had two years or a shorter period of reservation after capacity was guaranteed (Audirac et al. 1992, p. 18–35). Another 1992 report shows that 39% of localities indicated several facilities were not operating at the adopted LOS standards and 28% identified state roads as the most inadequate facility (Environmental Land Management Study Committee 1992, p. 61).

Although nationwide recession affecting housing starts from 1990 to 1993, Florida grew from 12.9 to 13.7 million residents. But doubts were raised regarding the impact of concurrency over economic development and population growth. The DCA learned that numerous incremental local rules harmed the credibility of concurrency as a statewide policy. Revisions to 9J-5 had to be supported by new legislation linking concurrency to sprawl control and compact development (Ben-Zadok and Gale 2001).

7. Compact development 1990s

The 1985 GMA included weak anti-sprawl and compact development requirements. Sprawl continued to spread and, in turn, led to decline in economic growth in urban areas. In the early 1990s, developers and businesses also recognized the negative impact of sprawl and commuting on farmlands, green areas, and jobs. In Florida and nationwide, sustainability and compact development initiatives appeared on government agendas (Leo et al. 1998; Weitz 1999; deHaven-Smith 2000; Boarnet et al. 2011).

7.1. Strategic planning

Four GMA's amendments constitute compact development 1990s. The 1993 and 1996 amendments were signed by Democratic Governor Lawton Chiles. The 1999 and 2002 amendments were signed by Republican Governor Jeb Bush (see Table 1). The 1993 transportation concurrency amendment concurred with most recommendations of the third Environmental Land Management Study Committee (1992). The 1996 Sustainable Communities Demonstration Project concurred with most recommendations of the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida (1995). The 1999 Urban Infill and Redevelopment concurred with several recommendations of the Transportation and Land Use Study Committee (1999). The 2002 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program succeeded the 1996 program (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3245 1999; Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247 2009).

Planning policy in these amendments marks an important change from managing growth in the 1985 legislation to managing the location of growth. The 1990s long-range strategies aim to restrain urban–suburban sprawl toward environmental and natural resources and, instead, to direct growth to sustainable/compact urban development areas with mixed land uses and high densities. The strategies represent the rational decision-level in the strategic planning model (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3245 1999 [(2511)(2)][(3180)(5)(a)][(3244)(1)]; Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247 2009 [(3246)(1–2)]) (see Table 1).

This strategic change targeted an urban area designated in the local comprehensive plan. In the 1993 amendment, this compact development area introduces a critical change in transportation concurrency. The new method to calculate the LOS standards is a combined assessment of the average traffic volume for all roads in the area, instead of the 1980s assessment by each road-corridor. Road construction, the largest and most costly of all concurrency facilities, is recognized as the main cause of sprawl and decline in urban activities (Florida Statues and Chapter 163.2511-3245 1999 (3180)(1)(5)). The 1996 designated area for compact development and environmental protection is marked by an urban development boundary (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3245 1999 (3244)(3)(a)). The 1999 urban infill and redevelopment area is designated for economic development, affordable housing, public transportation, and neighborhood revitalization (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3245 1999 [(2514)][(2517)(1)]). The 2002 DCA-certified urban area is contiguous and compact. To obtain certification, the locality must demonstrate an exemplary planning record and a commitment to add infrastructure and growth to the area (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247 2009 [(3246)(1)][(3246)(5)(b)]).

The designated urban area receives state's regulatory incentives to support transportation concurrency (1993) and sustainable/compact development (1996 and 2002) and redevelopment (1999). The incentives include exemptions, exceptions, flexible implementation guidelines, and technical assistance and financial aid. They support activities to enhance urban infill, redevelopment, and downtown revitalization (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3245 1999 [(2517)(1)][(3180)(5–8)][(3244)(3)]; Ben-Zadok 2006; Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247 2009 [(3246)(1)(9)]). The incentives represent the incremental decision level, the tactical decisions to advance the rational strategic decisions. The two linked decision levels represent high-level strategic planning (see Table 1).

7.2. Incremental implementation

Policy implementation in compact development 1990s represents high-level incrementalism, including increased discretion. The specific contents of exceptions, flexible guidelines, and other incentives were left for the implementation phase. Incentives were administered via discretionary state–local regulations that essentially decentralized power and enabled convenient local compromises among negotiating stakeholders. The case-by-case decision style led to a loss of statewide policy direction (see Table 1).

Incremental implementation is apparent in the 1993 transportation concurrency regulations. Several DCA-approved designated areas offer great local discretion in Rule 9J-5 (Steiner 2007). The Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) aims to promote infill development via efficient mobility modes. The TCMA allows localities to designate an urban area that contains alternative routes to various destinations. The area lacks specific size and overall LOS limitations. New projects are approved if their combined traffic volume does not exceed the TCMA's average, rather than requiring road-by-road approval. The Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) reduces concurrency impacts on urban infill and redevelopment projects and even exempts them from full compliance. It allows such projects in an urban area unlimited by size, an area with congested roads and low LOS standards. Another discretionary rule allows developers to delay the delivery of facilities. Facilities should be in place no later than the time of issuing a certificate of occupancy, rather than the time of issuing a building permit. Developers also enjoy ‘pay-and-go’ arrangement. That is, they may pay fees to localities whether or not facilities are available (Rule 9J-5, 001–025, 1999 (0055)(3)(5)(6)).

Incremental implementation increased in the 1996 pilot program and its 2002 successor. Both programs introduced the regulatory designation agreement, signed between the DCA and a selected community. The locality made all planning and project decisions in the designated area. State and regional reviews of local plans were eliminated in 1996 and reduced in 2002 (Florida Department of Community Affairs 2000, 2009b; Florida Senate and Committee on Comprehensive Planning 2000; Rule 9J-5.001-026 2009).

This state–local partnership turned bottom-up in the 1999 program. Localities gained most decision power including discretion in designating the compact urban area due to the lack of technical prescriptions. The area's plan is exempted from local (plan amendment) adoption and DCA review. The Department was criticized for limited regulatory capacity/report in this program (American Planning Association and Florida Chapter 2000, p. 12–13; Growth Management Study Commission 2001, p. 31–36; Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 2004; Rule 9J-5.001-026. 2009).

Although the 1990s introduced innovative programs into state legislation and regulations, local rule adoption was voluntary and local enforcement was limited. The 1993 program registered only five TCMAs and 28 TCEAs applications. The 1996 and 2002 programs included five communities that signed the agreement with the state in 1997 and four that signed in 2004. The 1999 program included 13 communities that designated an urban area by 2003 (Florida Department of Community Affairs 2000; Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 2004; Ben-Zadok 2005; Steiner 2007; Florida Department of Community Affairs 2009b).

Short local revenues to finance facilities and the weakening of the RPCs continued to maintain the incremental implementation trend. The RPCs were critical for regional planning, coordination of anti-sprawl strategies, and uniform enforcement among communities. In 1993, the DCA was prohibited from finding noncompliance in a local plan amendment due to inconsistency with a regional plan. The RPCs could not adopt binding LOS standards for local facilities and lost the power to appeal local DRI decisions. In 1996, the consistency requirement was eliminated for proposals determining the local development impact on other communities or regional/state facilities. The decreased regional review role of the DCA and RPCs highlighted the SCP's failure to guide statewide implementation (Starnes 1993; deHaven-Smith 1998; Ben-Zadok 2005; Nicholas and Chapin 2007; Pelham 2007).

Florida's sprawling metropolitan areas grew by 23.5% in the 1990s. In 2001, the state counted 16.3 million people with over one-half in unincorporated outlying suburbs; one-half of the counties had less than 80,000 residents (University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2002). In 2004, with 17.5 million, the state faced serious issues of sprawl, degraded natural resources, and backlogs of public facilities (Pelham 2007).

8. School/transportation concurrency 2000s

The Florida legislature addressed these issues through smart growth and sustainable urban development legislation, stressing sprawl control, environmental and natural resource protection, and mixed land uses and public transits. Several GMA's amendments coordinated sustainable urban development and public facilities delivery. A 2002 bill required localities and school districts to sign an agreement to coordinate planning for new developments and schools (DeGrove 2005, p. 43–92). A 2005 bill required a new Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida to prepare an annual report for the governor and legislature. Four GMA's amendments followed with major policy changes. The 2005 bill signed by Governor Bush introduced the school and transportation concurrency amendments. The 2007 and 2009 bills signed by Republican Governor Charles Crist introduced two more transportation concurrency amendments.

8.1. Strategic planning

The 2005 mandatory school concurrency was a significant policy change. After two decades of indecisive legislation, this statewide requirement became a prerequisite for a residential development application for a site plan or subdivision. A developer must demonstrate a sufficient capacity of school facilities to accommodate new students in the service area of the school. New school facilities must be in place or under construction within three years after the approval of application for a site plan or subdivision (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247 2009 [(3180)(13–14)]).

In the planning policy phase, rational-level strategic planning is apparent in the long-range strategy to coordinate sustainable new development and school construction. The strategy begins with consistency in adoption of a public school facilities element including LOS standards into the local plan. It continues with a school concurrency interlocal agreement signed between the locality and the school district board. The locality submits the school element and the agreement to the DCA, which approves the adequacy and financial feasibility of facilities. The strategy targets a service area designated for school construction: A district-wide area to begin implementation and a smaller area within five years after adoption (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247 2009 [(31777)(1–7)][(3180)(13)(b)]).

The planning phase also includes state guidelines for the designated school service area. A key element in the guidelines is proportionate share mitigation based on the area's LOS standards. The mitigation is the forum to make incremental-level tactical decisions to advance the school concurrency strategy. The developer enters a binding agreement with the locality and school district to provide the mitigation for insufficient school capacities via land donation, school construction, or an actual fee (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247 2009 (3180)(13)(d)(e)).

The 2005 school concurrency amendment displays well-linked rational and incremental decision levels. The 2005 transportation concurrency amendment adds requirements regarding mobility in TCEAs through multimodal services and mixed land uses (Steiner 2007). The 2007 and 2009 amendments display weak principles for transportation concurrency areas, representing the rational decision level. Therefore, the four amendments altogether were rated as a low-level strategic planning model (see Table 1).

Planning policy in 2005, 2007, and 2009 also included state guidelines for transportation concurrency areas. Proportionate share mitigation subjected to LOS standards again is a key element, representing incremental-level tactical decisions for transportation concurrency. In 2005, the developer may satisfy concurrency requirements by contributing or paying mitigation for facilities. In 2007, mitigation is limited to the current impact of a development on roads and excludes existing backlog reductions. The 2009 amendment proposes a study of mobility fees to replace mitigation payments (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3247 2009 [(3164)(32)][(3180)(4–12)]).

8.2. Incremental implementation

Concurrency 2000s represents a high-level incremental implementation phase. The state regulations for proportionate share mitigation left much discretion. The mitigation enabled case-by-case stakeholders' negotiation and decentralized local enforcement (see Table 1). In the 2005 school concurrency mitigation, the developer, local government, and school district negotiate every binding agreement (Florida Department of Community Affairs 2006). The average LOS standard for the district-wide service area can reduce differences in enrolment among schools in the district. Students from an overcrowded school in a growing community can be transferred to an unfilled school in a nongrowing community in the district. Therefore, the new number of students in the growing community's school does not exceed the average LOS of the whole district and new developments do not pay for new school construction (Gibson 2006; Rule 9J-5, 001–026, 2009).

All Florida communities submitted the school facilities element and interlocal agreement to the DCA by December 2008. By October 2010, the Department approved adequacy and financial feasibility of facilities for 61 out of 67 school district agreements (Florida House of Representatives 2011, p. 581–89). The 2005 bill provided only $113.4 million and $75 million in recurring funds. The small budget appears to encourage incremental implementation. Substantial more revenues are needed for a long-range school construction strategy for Florida's 475 cities and 67 school districts.

In transportation concurrency, the 2005 bill of $1.1 billion and $541 million in recurring funds was insufficient to address the huge backlogs. In 2007, local plans are not required to provide authorization of multi-use DRI to satisfy concurrency requirements. A pilot program to replace state review of local plans in a dense urban area aims to reduce state oversight via exemptions and exceptions (Trevarthen et al. 2007). In 2009, transportation concurrency requirements in a Dense Urban Land Area (DULA) can be removed by designating it as a TCEA. The DULA's definition may decrease density thresholds and even exempt rural areas from road construction. It provides great discretion to 246 cities and 8 counties, automatically qualified as DULAs. The DULA is exempted from DRI review and allows counties to establish urban service areas after a cursory DCA's review (Florida Department of Community Affairs 2009a). Despite of its flexibility, the 2009 bill was challenged as an unfunded mandate by 20 cities suing the state. The court found the bill unconstitutional in September 2010.

Funds for school/transportation facilities and sustainable urban development were stalled and the DCA suffered budget and staff cuts during the recent nationwide economic recession. Because Florida lacks personal income tax, it depends on sales taxes. The latter is a volatile income source with deficits during recessions. The state economy also suffered falling home prices and credit shortages. Florida's Gross Domestic Product nationwide ranking dropped from second in 2005 to 12 in 2007. The 2.0–2.6% annual population growth since the mid-1990s dropped to 1.8% in 2007 (House Policy and Budget Council 2008). In 2010, Florida was still the fourth most populated state and home to 18.8 million residents.

9. Policy change summary

From 1970 to 2010, Florida GMA policies addressed critical issues of organization of planning, intergovernmental consistency, environment/resource protection, sprawl control, economic development, sustainable/compact urban development, and public facilities delivery. Ten successive planning and implementation phases delineated a thread of five different models reflecting changes in legislative and administrative decision styles. Implementation lessons clearly affected subsequent policy phases (see Table 1).

Comprehensive planning 1970s and consistency 1980s launched a rational planning reform including the preparation of local, regional, and state comprehensive plans. The 1970s incremental implementation accommodated competing state, local, development, and environmental stakeholders. The lesson learned from this bottom-up style was reflected in the top-down rational implementation of consistency 1980s. This policy introduced a centralized state bureaucracy through Rule 9J-5. Consistency was the only policy where implementation complied strictly with planning, due to effective legislation, regulation, and enforcement links. Its success overshadowed subsequent, more problematic, implementation phases. Florida emerged as a state growth management leader.

The DCA also learned not to replicate the 1980s prescriptive state–regional–local plan review. Planning policy in concurrency 1980s–1990s introduced a continuous rational decision process, including flexible iterations and feedback loops in response to changing implementation circumstances. This process planning model allowed timing and location alterations for six public facilities that must be available ‘concurrent’ with the development's impact. This change in planning policy was followed by discretionary incremental implementation. Concurrency negotiations among competing stakeholders resulted in case-by-case bargaining compromises and numerous local compliance variances. With the early 1990s national economic recession, the policy was losing professional and political credentials.

Planning policy in compact development 1990s changed weak anti-sprawl and compact development requirements from the 1980s. It proposed strategies for sprawl control and sustainable/compact urban development, targeting the location of growth rather than merely managing growth. Transportation concurrency and sustainable development and redevelopment strategies were applied in designated urban areas. The areas received state incentives like exemptions and flexible implementation guidelines. These tactics encouraged mixed land uses and high densities. Despite of this effective strategic planning model, implementation lagged behind. State–local regulations to apply incentives brought increased discretion compared with concurrency 1980s–1990s. The regulations reduced state power and enabled competing stakeholders to negotiate convenient local compromises. This case-by-case incremental decision style led to a loss of state's policy direction.

Planning policy in concurrency 2000s introduced important changes through strategic planning. The policy addressed sustainable urban development via strategies to coordinate new development and school/transportation concurrency. State guidelines for designated service areas included proportionate share mitigation. Increased discretion in mitigations enabled case-by-case local negotiations and decisions, which led to incremental implementation.

Since the mid-1990s, weak regional planning contributed to incremental implementation of compact development and concurrency policies. The RPCs lost review power over local plans, turned into advisory bodies, and the DRI component was weakened. The downscaling of regional planning to coordinate state anti-sprawl policies among communities further decentralized the intergovernmental process. This trend was reinforced by the SCP's continuous failure to provide guidance to the RPCs.

Short revenues of localities responsible for funding concurrency were critical factors in incremental implementation. With the early 1990s' national recession, communities turned entrepreneurial, trying to meet new construction and backlog requirements. The 1990s failure to finance local facilities and strengthen sustainable/compact development lies in the lack of state funding legislation. The funding problem, the reduced DCA's role including budget and staff cuts, and the severe national economic recession all contributed to incremental implementation of urban infrastructure and sustainable development goals in concurrency 2000s. Implementation lacked the required state funds, especially for cutting the huge backlogs and deficits in school and transportation facilities. Florida remained a low impact taxation system with dwindling sales and property taxes due to the current recession. Impact fees were partial solutions and “penny” tax amendments for facilities and services continued to lose in local referendums (Nicholas and Chapin 2007; Pelham 2007; Lewis et al. 2009).

10. Conclusions and policy implications

Four conclusions are derived from the preceding summary. First, Florida GMA record sheds light on successful and creative planning policies representing rational, process, and strategic planning models. Second, the underlying design weakness of the GMA and Rule 9J-5 lies in the failure of planning policies to link effectively to implementation processes. The problem was in the constant shift from prescriptive rational, process, and strategic state–local planning to discretionary local implementation. In addition, the outdated SCP did not guide the RPCs. Third, Florida continuously experienced a decentralized incremental implementation; consistency 1980s' rational exception was noted above. Discretionary state–local regulations led to case-by-case decisions and numerous enforcement versions in communities. Fourth, the absence of state–local funding mechanisms and the downsized DCA reinforced incremental implementation.

Four policy implications are generated from these conclusions. First, Florida GMA and Rule 9J-5 should greatly improve the compliance and feedback mechanisms that link planning and implementation. The state should strengthen local enforcement through prescriptive and detailed standards, guidelines, incentives, and sanctions. The RPCs should be re-empowered with plan review standards for sprawl control, regional planning, and coordination among communities (Burby and Paterson 1993; Ben-Zadok 2006). Second, Florida's intergovernmental system should discourage discretionary implementation and variable compliance in communities. Third, only selected localities with solid planning practices should be entitled with state's incentives and discretionary implementation guidelines. All communities could benefit from a state manual for best local planning methods and standards (Chapin 2007). Fourth, the GMA should identify alternative revenue sources and link budgets to specific programs, especially those emphasizing public facilities and sustainable urban development. Florida's governor and legislature should provide localities with adequate state funds, especially for construction and improvement of schools and roads.

Florida's story concludes with successful and innovative planning, which lacked sufficient links to implementation. Decentralized implementation was plagued with local discretion and incremental decisions. In the final analysis, these problems may be viewed as byproducts of the fragmented state political culture, which undermined more prescriptive intergovernmental implementation. Florida is marked by distinct communities and regions. Self-directed communities push their comprehensive plan agendas, followed by weak regional coordination and SCP. Competing stakeholders include powerful development and business sectors and moderately influential environmental and professional planning groups. This political culture also encourages party politics and elections that respond to personalities rather than to political institutions and policy platforms (Brody et al. 2006; Parker and Towner 2008).

Legislative and executive power shifts between Florida Democratic and Republican parties appear as a weaker explanation for changes in state growth management. Growth management enjoyed bipartisan support under Democratic governors for three decades. In the late 1990s, Republicans took control over the governorship and legislature and dominated state politics into 2010. They supported increased decentralization and local discretion and threatened to dismantle the growth management system (DeGrove 2005). The 2007 and 2009 transportation concurrency bills signaled a Republican move toward partisan growth management. The 2011 drastic cuts in growth management administration and regulations were the result of a Republican governor and legislature supported by economic recession and unemployment. Future changes in economic and political conditions may bring back bipartisan policies including more centralized and prescriptive elements.

The 2011 bill repealed Rule 9J-5 with portions transferred to the GMA, reorganized substantial parts of the Act, and revoked the statewide concurrency requirement for school, transportation, park, and recreation. Localities opting to maintain concurrency for these facilities had to comply with specified requirements and LOS standards (Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.2511-3248 2011 (3180)). Another 2011 bill downsized and moved the DCA to the Department of Economic Opportunity. The renamed agency, Division of Community Development, focused on local technical assistance with little plan review power (Florida Department of Economic Opportunity 2011). The 2011 policy shift should facilitate programs that encourage discretion in selected communities with solid planning expertise and practice. The 1996 and 2002 pilot programs may provide lessons in this case.

Florida historic funding problem is not likely to improve. The underlying political problem is how to reform the state's conservative fiscal structure. The current recession further empowers business, development, and real estate lobbies. After four decades of statewide growth management, Florida continues to search for revenues to fund huge infrastructure backlogs and sustainable urban developments.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Efraim Ben-Zadok

Efraim Ben-Zadok: Florida Atlantic University, School of Public Administration, Boca Raton, USA.